YouTube discussion

[VHSgoodiesWA 152]

My problem with suing is that the copyright people will nearly always win. Better just to either hope the appeal goes through and I get two of the three channels back...

 

OR I fold completely, go to internet Archive and for the next 6-8 months rapidly upload everything I have minus anything 'questionable'.

 

Of course the latter option means a massive loss in views and reactions compared to YouTube. Some of my videos got over 50,000 views, and 100s of likes. Plus most of the public would likely use YouTube vs. the Internet Archive for classic TV footage. YouTube is 'THE video-sharing site' and has been for many years.

I wish I could go back to my YT accounts and find a way to tell my subscribers what happened...but I'm sure a lot of them know already. The problem is how many will be able to transition their clicks from YT to I-A.

[Marvin Dillweed 68]

An announcement from NewsActive3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws1DE0eSno0

[Newsjunkie24 313]

13 hours ago, VHSgoodiesWA said:

My problem with suing is that the copyright people will nearly always win. Better just to either hope the appeal goes through and I get two of the three channels back...

 

OR I fold completely, go to internet Archive and for the next 6-8 months rapidly upload everything I have minus anything 'questionable'.

 

Of course the latter option means a massive loss in views and reactions compared to YouTube. Some of my videos got over 50,000 views, and 100s of likes. Plus most of the public would likely use YouTube vs. the Internet Archive for classic TV footage. YouTube is 'THE video-sharing site' and has been for many years.

I wish I could go back to my YT accounts and find a way to tell my subscribers what happened...but I'm sure a lot of them know already. The problem is how many will be able to transition their clicks from YT to I-A.

 

If I had a YouTube channel, I would never sue any of these big media companies as they already have lots of lawyers anyway.

 

Still hoping that they will reverse their decision.

 

I'm not sure if these companies are so protective of their copyright because of lost money or the same old corporate greed that's always existed. 

[Route66Fan 63]

Has anybody had problems with Vimeo?

[Newsjunkie24 313]

25 minutes ago, Route66Fan said:

Has anybody had problems with Vimeo?

 

I don't use it, but I've heard they're just as bad and strict with enforcing copyright as YouTube is.

[Ntropolis 583]

2 hours ago, Route66Fan said:

Has anybody had problems with Vimeo?

 

1 hour ago, Newsjunkie24 said:

 

I don't use it, but I've heard they're just as bad and strict with enforcing copyright as YouTube is.

 

I think it's important to point out Vimeo is designed for film & video industry professionals, filmmakers, etc. to showcase their work/portfolios. it wouldn't surprise me at all if they pulled such content from their platform.

[Newsjunkie24 313]

5 minutes ago, Ntropolis said:

 

 

I think it's important to point out Vimeo is designed for film & video industry professionals, filmmakers, etc. to showcase their work/portfolios. it wouldn't surprise me at all if they pulled such content from their platform.

 

I agree with that. it's like the LinkedIn of video sites. 

[VHSgoodiesWA 152]

I've gotten up to 100 videos re-uploaded to Internet Archive. Tons more coming as I wait for the appeal reply.

[compubit 554]

17 minutes ago, Ntropolis said:

 

 

I think it's important to point out Vimeo is designed for film & video industry professionals, filmmakers, etc. to showcase their work/portfolios. it wouldn't surprise me at all if they pulled such content from their platform.

I've not had anything pulled so far...  But I've been with them for years, back when they were trying to be an alternative to YouTube.  Now that their focus has changed to industry professionals - I'm thinking they're looking for certain types of material, and so far, my content hasn't raised any flags.  It's also very easy to fly under the radar, if you're not promoting things (I have video linking turned off, etc.).

 

That being said, I also have everything I've uploaded saved in multiple places, so if necessary, it can be positioned elsewhere if needed.  

Finally, at some point, I'd like to donate the content to a university or library system that will manage it and make it available to the masses.

 

Jim

 

 

[VHSgoodiesWA 152]

That is what I will do, Jim. I am really hoping in the near-future to archive everything and donate my collection to the Yakima Valley Museum, and possibly break ground on an exhibit highlighting Yakima TV history.

I'm up to nearly 200 re-uploaded videos on Internet Archive, and nearly a week in...no reply from YouTube/Google regarding the appeal for VHSgoodiesWA3 and VHSgoodiesWA4. They had 1 strike and 0 strikes respectfully. Taken down unfairly and at a major cost to my hobby, time, and to my 1000s of subscribers. I had just reached 10K on 'VHSgoodiesWA3' a few days prior.

 

BTW, this is what I wrote to them...I still have it. I hope this is enough for them to reverse the takedowns of channels 3 and 4:

"I realize that my VHSgoodies account was suspended for copyright infringement. However, I have strived to do the best I can on the other two accounts. The VHSgoodiesWA3 account has only one strike and the VHSgoodiesWA4 account has never had a copyright strike in over a year. Classic television collecting is my hobby. I have been doing this for over six years and I have had all types of positive feedback from the people around me. I have even made friends because of this hobby. I have had people from my hometown of Yakima, who worked at various television stations, reply to me thanking me for posting videos from their station. I am here to preserve classic television, commercials, and nostalgia that it provides to so many, and there are dozens of other YouTubers who have done the same.

Please reinstate my accounts, and I promise things will work out in the end. I love this hobby and would do everything to keep it going for the next generation to come."

[RetroCirq 148]

I had my share of copyright infringment over the years, but this feels different. So, I had to remove a few videos from my secondary YouTube page in order to keep it running.

[VHSgoodiesWA 152]

Nothing has updated with the YouTube situation. However, just now, I sent off appeal #2 for both VHSgoodiesWA3 and VHSgoodiesWA4. I sent the same appeal notice to both the regular appeal tool and the copyright@youtube.com address. We'll see what happens now.............

 

If I don't hear from them this time, I will be sending ANOTHER appeal around May 10th. 

I will not give up on getting my videos back, even if I have to apologize to Warner Bros.

[VHSgoodiesWA 152]

My accounts will remain terminated. Sorry everybody.

[Newsjunkie24 313]

18 minutes ago, VHSgoodiesWA said:

My accounts will remain terminated. Sorry everybody.

 

What a shame. And yet users like Michael Pannoni can still create new accounts after being terminated.

[hmaxhanson 635]

3 hours ago, Newsjunkie24 said:

 

What a shame. And yet users like Michael Pannoni can still create new accounts after being terminated.

I think he does that through the use of multiple email addresses....

[VHSgoodiesWA 152]

Even though my time at YouTube seems to be over, keep in mind that Pepsi9072 (Eric) has been posting selected videos from my collection to YT so at least the memories can return. 

Also, through a magical method that I cannot disclose, I have been able to upload a few things to the project he manages. It's called "The AVTB Archives". Keep in mind, I cannot disclose anything about how Eric was able to get me this privilege, but it means about twice a week I can post commercials and newscasts from my collection back to YouTube via AVTB. So, a small win I guess?

[SoFloTVClassics 775]

Welp everyone's favorite news bloopers channel, News be funny, has been Demonitized.

 

 

 

The explanation is in the comments.

 

 

 

[TheRyan 556]

For the first time ever last week, one of my videos was removed from YouTube.  I never had YouTube remove a video before, but I see that I'm in good company.

 

I find it completely ridiculous that YouTube is seeking to punish the very people who contribute content to the platform.  If this trend continues, I really hope there is a comparable video platform for people to go to.

[sanewsguy 491]

1 hour ago, TheRyan said:

For the first time ever last week, one of my videos was removed from YouTube.  I never had YouTube remove a video before, but I see that I'm in good company.

 

I find it completely ridiculous that YouTube is seeking to punish the very people who contribute content to the platform.  If this trend continues, I really hope there is a comparable video platform for people to go to.

If you don’t mind me asking, what was the video in question and why was it taken down? Was it copyright-related, and if so, who was it?

 

If you don’t feel comfortable sharing publicly you can also inbox me.

 

I’m really curious as I have precautions in place and a “Do Not Post” list of companies I avoid at all costs, and if this is one I need to add, I’d like to know.

 

I do also agree with you that I wish there was a viable alternative to YouTube. I would’ve left years ago but have stayed only because it has reach.

[TheRyan 556]

3 hours ago, sanewsguy said:

If you don’t mind me asking, what was the video in question and why was it taken down? Was it copyright-related, and if so, who was it?

 

If you don’t feel comfortable sharing publicly you can also inbox me.

 

I’m really curious as I have precautions in place and a “Do Not Post” list of companies I avoid at all costs, and if this is one I need to add, I’d like to know.

 

I do also agree with you that I wish there was a viable alternative to YouTube. I would’ve left years ago but have stayed only because it has reach.

 

Sure.  It was an episode of a podcast I do.  It was not copyright-related.  They removed it citing misinformation.

 

On a different note: Since you mentioned that you have a Do Not Post list, I will say that one video I produced last summer was later marked as having copyrighted material.  I'm not 100 percent sure if I remember right but I believe A&E was a claimant.  I thought at the time (and still continue to believe) that it was a false claim.  But nonetheless, I removed that video from YouTube on my own to avoid any potential issue.

[sanewsguy 491]

10 minutes ago, TheRyan said:

 

Sure.  It was an episode of a podcast I do.  It was not copyright-related.  They removed it citing misinformation.

This is a thing with all of the major social media platforms. It's pretty aggravating in my opinion, especially considering that the "misinformation" label is so vague, and not applied evenly. I also don't think it's the place of these platforms to determine what's "true" and what's not, as that's very subjective, and they likely don't have trained staff who can make that determination.

 

10 minutes ago, TheRyan said:

On a different note: Since you mentioned that you have a Do Not Post list, I will say that one video I produced last summer was later marked as having copyrighted material.  I'm not 100 percent sure if I remember right but I believe A&E was a claimant.  I thought at the time (and still continue to believe) that it was a false claim.  But nonetheless, I removed that video from YouTube on my own to avoid any potential issue.

I stay away from modern-day material from CBS, ANYTHING from legacy Viacom. Individual stations I will not post include KESQ and WMC-TV as they've pulled my stuff before (over a decade ago, but I still have a sour taste in my mouth). I focus on local stations and just avoid national content if I can help it. The local stations usually understand, and appreciate, what we're trying to do as archivists. Or the chain owner's corporate legal team doesn't think it's worth going after an individual for a newscast that aired once. OTOH, the networks have bigger legal teams that have the time to search YouTube looking for content to pull (*cough* Viacom *cough*).

Edited May 5, 2021 by sanewsguy

[24994J 4288]

Speaking from a positive experience, I wish more stations/companies would just claim the copyright of the content, and monetize it for them. My effort remains up, and they make a few pennies off of it. Fine by me, since 99% of us aren't in it for money and would never think of trying to profit of our uploads.

[sanewsguy 491]

4 minutes ago, 24994J said:

Speaking from a positive experience, I wish more stations/companies would just claim the copyright of the content, and monetize it for them. My effort remains up, and they make a few pennies off of it. Fine by me, since 99% of us aren't in it for money and would never think of trying to profit of our uploads.

This is exactly what Tegna does (through BBTV), and they've been doing this since late last year.

 

I don't monetize my channel and have zero plans to. Not my content, I just love doing this, I genuinely enjoy it. I couldn't care less about the money (in fact I spend some of my own money to acquire content/equipment/graphic designs for my channel).

Edited May 5, 2021 by sanewsguy

[Newsjunkie24 313]

11 hours ago, TheRyan said:

 

Sure.  It was an episode of a podcast I do.  It was not copyright-related.  They removed it citing misinformation.

 

On a different note: Since you mentioned that you have a Do Not Post list, I will say that one video I produced last summer was later marked as having copyrighted material.  I'm not 100 percent sure if I remember right but I believe A&E was a claimant.  I thought at the time (and still continue to believe) that it was a false claim.  But nonetheless, I removed that video from YouTube on my own to avoid any potential issue.

 

A&E has a history of filing false copyright claims on public domain footage, simply because said footage aired on one of their "Caught on Camera"-style shows, like the now-cancelled PD Cam, Court Cam, and I Survived a Crime.

[Newsjunkie24 313]

11 hours ago, sanewsguy said:

This is a thing with all of the major social media platforms. It's pretty aggravating in my opinion, especially considering that the "misinformation" label is so vague, and not applied evenly. I also don't think it's the place of these platforms to determine what's "true" and what's not, as that's very subjective, and they likely don't have trained staff who can make that determination.

 

I stay away from modern-day material from CBS, ANYTHING from legacy Viacom. Individual stations I will not post include KESQ and WMC-TV as they've pulled my stuff before (over a decade ago, but I still have a sour taste in my mouth). I focus on local stations and just avoid national content if I can help it. The local stations usually understand, and appreciate, what we're trying to do as archivists. Or the chain owner's corporate legal team doesn't think it's worth going after an individual for a newscast that aired once. OTOH, the networks have bigger legal teams that have the time to search YouTube looking for content to pull (*cough* Viacom *cough*).

 

It's not always the case, but usually the bigger the company is, the more protective they are  of their IP. ViacomCBS is the biggest one, though I'm not sure if it's changed since the merger. WB, Sony, Disney, and FOX are very strict. NBCUniversal is slightly more laidback, although do block/takedown on occasion, sometimes on older stuff. Fremantle is pretty laid back as well, and only block if they actually release the material someplace.

 

Were the KESQ and WMC takedowns more of their parent company's thing?

 

Except on a few occasions, I'm glad most local newscasts remain untouched.  

10 hours ago, 24994J said:

Speaking from a positive experience, I wish more stations/companies would just claim the copyright of the content, and monetize it for them. My effort remains up, and they make a few pennies off of it. Fine by me, since 99% of us aren't in it for money and would never think of trying to profit of our uploads.

 

I wish all media companies did this, so they at least get some money out of it, instead outright taking down stuff.

10 hours ago, sanewsguy said:

This is exactly what Tegna does (through BBTV), and they've been doing this since late last year.

 

I don't monetize my channel and have zero plans to. Not my content, I just love doing this, I genuinely enjoy it. I couldn't care less about the money (in fact I spend some of my own money to acquire content/equipment/graphic designs for my channel).

 

I lot of the users in the "Vintage TV Community" don't do it for money, they just do it to archive material that hasn't been released anywhere.